EarlDoherty

Of course it was your point. You seemed to be paralleling Achilles with Paul's Jesus and declaring that both were being treated as historical. At least, that is how I understood your comparison. Perhaps you need to clarify. You said: "My impression is that they gave much weight to tradition and if tradition said there was an Achilles or a Jesus, then there was." I responded by pointing out that Paul is not applicable here, since he gives no sign of treating his Jesus as an historical person.



Any other "writers of allegorical commentary" are irrelevant in regard to Paul. There is no indication in Paul that he is writing allegorically. There is no clear indication in Paul that he is starting from a figure who he assumes is historical and a lot indicating quite the opposite. So how can he introduce any opinion as to whether such a historicity is questionable or irrelevant?

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

NO, I DID NOT CHANGE MY MIND! This is what I am talking about when I complain about my views being misrepresented, or my explanations being twisted, or answers to objections simply being ignored. (No wonder some accuse me of being prickly!) Do you understand what the term "nuance" means? What I failed to do in The Jesus Puzzle was make it clear that my arguments about a relocation to a heavenly/spiritual dimension of the myths of the savior gods applied to the views of those myths within the mystery cults and their interpretations of their rites, not to the views of the man-in-the-street or writers like Herodotus or Tacitus or Pausanias. Yes, my language was not clear, and in one spot even misleading (even though the context in TJP was the mystery cults and a comparison of them with Paul's Christianity). But that clarification was forthcoming in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man as well as in several threads on this DB in response to GDon's criticisms and constant quoting of a couple of paragraphs in TJP lacking that nuance a quoting he still indulges in.

And I didn't get anything wrong about the "world of myth" in TJP. I greatly expanded upon it in JNGNM in terms of evidence in ancient literature. That, too, is simply ignored by GDon. As he did with my rebuttal to his book review's reading of Plutarch which I thoroughly demolished.

You're damn right I can get prickly!

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Yes, and this is all we need. If Roo is claiming that visions and interpretations of scripture like that which we see in the epistle to the Hebrews or the many ascents-to-heaven accounts in Jewish sectarian writings like the Enochs and the Ascension of Isaiah are only "believed", what point does he think he is making? Is he claiming that all these writers were only making stuff up to entertain their kids? Are they ancient fairy tales? Those imaginings about the heavens and what went on in them by the ancient mind are not a modern invention. They are there to be read in the literature of the field we are debating and there is zero evidence that they were not actually believed by their writers. So what the hell is his point?

By the way, have you all seen the ranting review Roo put up on Amazon for my e-book "The End of an Illusion", my Vridar rebuttal to Bart Ehrman? He complains--indeed, he foams at the mouth--about my bloated and impenetrable prose, my sleep-inducing attention to detail, and in far more bloated and profuse verbosity than anything I've ever been guilty of. He sounds like a demented English professor intent on burying a recalcitrant student under a pile of prolix ridicule and diarrheic windiness I could never hope to emulate (though I can try). I mean, just look at his posting here. Not even Abe, or Don, or the late-lamented Jeffrey Gibson reached such gibbering heights. What is with this guy?

My response? A quote from another Amazon reviewer a few years ago: "He is a clear writer. As clear as I've read."

Well, everyone to his own opinion, I guess.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

No, Don, it was not a clarification of what I was arguing. Such a clarification needs to include the evidence I offer in support of those statements in The Jesus Puzzle which you keep parroting over and over. I have many times pointed you to Appendix 6 in TJP (“The location of the myths of the Greek savior gods and of Christ”) which summarizes the evidence (or “indicators”—a term which I switched to in deference to your thin skin) for them. Not once have you taken that Appendix and addressed any of it in proper rebuttal. In your lengthy review of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man you never addressed my Chapter 12 (“Conceiving the World of Myth”) with its examination of many ancient documents detailing what various writers imagined went on in the heavenly mythical world, and you still refuse to do so.

So instead of this constant urging of others to ‘investigate my arguments’, and because you've made it clear that your knowledge of the subject is more than sufficient to dismiss them, why not examine them and refute them yourself, right here? Enlighten us all.

After all, I’ve presented the evidence you claim to discount and dismiss. It’s now up to you to respond to that evidence, not up to me to repeat it all here in hopes that you’ll finally deign to address it. Take my JNGNM chapter 12 apart, piece by piece. Show that it in no way indicates how the ancients thought about the heavenly world and what could go on in it, show that such documents and imaginings are irrelevant as indicators for not only how the mystery cult devotees interpreted their myths (as well as various Jewish sectarian writers as in the Ascension of Isaiah) but for how Paul and the other epistle writers could have interpreted the myth of their Jesus’ crucifixion at the hands of “the rulers of this age.” In other words, do some of the actual work yourself, in direct refutation to what I have presented.

If tackling an entire chapter is just too much for you, I’d even settle on you taking my Appendix 6 in TJP and answering that in detail. Or is that too demanding as well? And by the way, as an addendum to my earlier posting on ‘nuance’ and clarification of what I meant in TJP in those broken-record passages you keep shoving in my face, the opening paragraphs of that Appendix made it clear that in TJP I was speaking of the views of the myths as interpreted by the cults:

Who knows, if you can cut your teeth on TJP Appendix, you might even develop the muscle to tackle my “World of Myth” chapter in JNGNM.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

And what, from the text of any Pauline letter, can you supply in support of this? As far as I’m concerned, this is on the level of scholars like Harold Attridge who declare that the entire “heavenly sanctuary sacrifice” in the epistle to the Hebrews is plain and simple a metaphor for Calvary. This is nothing but wishful thinking on Attridge’s part, for nothing in the letter points to this, and the writer’s whole comparison between the heavenly and earthly sacrifices works entirely against it. This is why the epistle to the Hebrews with its sacrifice in the heavenly world and a Christ revealed solely in scripture is so illuminating and useful for mythicism and such a problem for historicism.

I can’t go along with this tendency to ‘reinterpret’ ancient mythology in terms of modern apologetic techniques which not even theologians can get across with succinct credibility. It’s all done in the interests of rescuing and spin-doctoring ancient thought in light of modern sensibilities, like rendering the creation myth in Genesis as allegory. (Nor can I sympathize with maryhelena’s seizing of Andrew’s straw to find a way to anchor Paul’s crucifixion of Christ on earth. Neither does she have a single piece of text—other than the widely-judged interpolation in 1 Thess. 2:15-16—in a Pauline letter, or any other epistle writer of the first century, to support it. But I do have to acknowledge her increasing ability to emulate modern theologian-babble.)

Earl Doherty

GakuseiDon

I go into this on Page 4 of my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...M_Review4.html

That's right. But originally Doherty said it was part of the conceptual world of "the average pagan" -- see my quote above. And now, in response to Ehrman's criticism, Doherty writes (my bold):

I needed to have stressed that it was only in the context of interpretations within the mystery cults themselves, and not those of the common man-in-the-street or the average writer speaking of the traditional myths (such as the historian Tacitus or the geographer Pausanias), that I am claiming that a reorientation to the upper world took place for the activities of the savior gods, under the influence of Platonism.

... which is remarkably convenient, since while we have the writings of educated pagans like Tacitus, we have none from the mystery religions.

If mystery religions did reorient the activities of the saviour gods, it would have been from ancient earth-based myths into allegories of natural forces, along the lines of thought at that time. We have good evidence from Plutarch and other Middle Platonists that an allegorical view of the myths developed. The Emperor Julian -- who was an actual mystery religion devotee -- had such an allegorical view. Part of the problem of Doherty's indicators is that he is trying to pass off allegorical views as 'indicators' of a "World of Myth". But where does the "World of Myth" fit in? Nowhere. The evidence we do have survives quite nicely without it.

Actually, that is very perceptive of you. Yes, I do. In fact, I think that this will be Richard Carrier's approach in the book he will publish in 2013. Carrier holds Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" as (from memory) 90% speculative digression. I doubt he will be using many of Doherty's 'indicators' on the pagan side (though Plutarch's "Isis and Osiris" will almost certainly be in there.)

Horatio Parker

I'm not talking about Paul; you are. You brought up Paul commenting on my post to rlogan.

I'm talking about writers such as Philo, Porphyry, Numenius and Proclus and making the general point that these authors, when exploring the higher meaning of myth, Homer in particular, seem to regard the characters as historical.

GakuseiDon

Actually it was. Most of your supporters seem to think that "World of Myth" just means gods doing things in the heavens. I guess they are perplexed at your comments that we have no direct writings to support your "World of Myth" concept, if they think about it at all. So my clarification was for their benefit. The clarification is that you are talking about the myths of the saviour gods, i.e. the actual myths describing the activities undertaken by those gods that led to them becoming a model for salvation for others.

Challenge accepted! I'll start a new thread, probably next weekend. I'll examine in depth your JNGNM Chapter 12, to look at your indicators that the mystery cults transferred the myths of their saviour gods to a Platonic higher world.

Okay. So for the average pagan, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. BUT, they DIDN'T think that there a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, and Attis could be castrated. Is that correct? Or did the average pagan not think that the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm? Can you clarify this please?

I will go straight to Chapter 12 in JNGNM. That's the one where you refer your readers to the works of Acharya S for more information on astrotheology, isn't it? Especially her "Suns of God"?

I'll bow out of this thread now, to start work on the new thread.

Not that I think another thread between you and me will mean anything. No-one will check things for themselves. Rlogan will still attribute weird position statements to me. Toto will still mutter darkly of motives. I regard your work as pretty much irrelevant now that Carrier is taking up the challenge of moving the mythicist position forward in the book that he is publishing next year. As far as I know, Carrier will be using the descending-ascending god model rather than the "World of Myth" concept. It means your concept will be consigned to the fringe theories graveyard, along with astrotheology, and only supported by die-hards who don't really care one way or the other, as long as the answer is "no historical Jesus".

ApostateAbe

The meaning of what you wrote on page 99 of Jesus Puzzle seems plain enough.

"Just as today we perceive natural laws and forces working in nature and the universe, the ancients perceived spiritual forces operating between the natural world and the supernatural, between the present, earthly reality and the primordial past or higher divine reality."

The quote that GakuseiDon retrieved from your website seems even plainer.

"For the average pagan and Jew, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the 'genuine' part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the 'air' and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven."

Sorry if this bothers you, but your present position (only ancient mystery cults believed in a "world of myth") seems significantly different from your past position (the whole pagan world believed in a "world of myth"). Unfortunately, you seem to be digging yourself deeper into this particular trench, and it seems unnecessary. If you merely changed your mind, then I would take it as a sign of honesty. I certainly wouldn't hold it against you. That is what honest scholars do. Bart Ehrman is on record as having changed his own stated position in the course of his own career. I appreciate him for that. Of course, I can't speak for your many loyal readers who tend to treat your claims as gospel truth, and I can see how that may be a problem.

At least now I know what position you are willing to defend and what you want your readers to believe, which is progress. I am willing to put this matter behind us if you are willing to discuss the most relevant points. So, any time you are ready, you can supply the evidence that ancient mystery cults believed in this "World of Myth" you have in mind. It is an extraordinary position, because I understand that we know hardly anything about what ancient mystery cults believed ("mystery" being a key word).

Roo Bookaroo

ApostateAbe:

Note that, in the case of Mithras, Kenneth Humphreys has posted three extensive articles, reviewing and incorporating the best of the Mithras schorlarship, about 20 authors, on his site Jesus Never Existed:

The Invincible Mithras
The Gospel of Mithras
The Companions of Mithras

with a magnificent collection of pictures, which are nearly more illuminating than the text.
Nothing similar must be available for the other godly heroes, I presume.